Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[Dapper]

Totally missing the point of my post

Your post has no point. It is in no way sarcastically analogous to what not my position is, but rather the position of any reasonable person, which is backed up by several sources and legislation.


Meanwhile, all you've done is make erroneous comparisons that have no bearing in reality. And, despite incessant inquisitions, you have failed over and over to supply anything that backs your, in my opinion, disgusting view that you can shoot someone, specifically in the leg, and expect them to fully be OK.

And I asked my mom what she thought on this elementary subject. She said, "Well, I have always been told that you don't shoot unless you expect the other person to die." A third source that significantly trumps my opposition.

 

[Zenith]

just for you.

You do realize that he was being sarcastic, right? It's like the third time it's happened in this discussion.

Edit: nevermind...

You just used your mom as a source. You're thicker than a brick.

 

[Dapper]

You just used your mom as a source. You're thicker than a brick.

The definition of ignorant. ^

Look at your pathetic post. Page after page of unsubstantiated crap.

Show some effort... and not what you've currently been showing.

 

[Tornado]

And I asked my mom what she thought on this elementary subject. She said, "Well, I have always been told that you don't shoot unless you expect the other person to die." A third source that significantly trumps my opposition.

I asked my reflection in the mirror. He hemmed and hawed for a little while, but ultimately agreed that you were wrong. I also asked a shoe and a box of Twinkies. They also both agreed.


There. Three sources.

 

[Dapper]

I asked my reflection in the mirror. He hemmed and hawed for a little while, but ultimately agreed that you were wrong. I also asked a shoe and a box of Twinkies. They also both agreed.


There. Three sources.

Don't you get tired of posting in such an overtly worthless manner?

 

[Danoff]

...the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the following: defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances.

That is how it's written.

In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's actions, use of a deadly weapon, or other circumstances.

The list starts after "considering". If the list started before "considering" the sentence doesn't work. If the list starts after "defendant's" the sentence doesn't work that way either. In order for either of those to work, these sentences would have to make sense:

In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by use of a deadly weapon.

^ Makes no sense. The state can use a deadly weapon to prove something in court?

In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the defendant's other circumstances.

Huh?

Both of those work when the list starts after "considering":

In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering the use of a deadly weapon.

In a first degree murder case, the state may prove the defendant's deliberate intent to commit an unlawful killing by considering other circumstances.

Edit:

I have 100% certainty that your next post will be to admit your incorrect interpretation, apologize for taking this thread off course, and thank me for helping you out.

 

[McLaren]

The definition of ignorant. ^

Look at your pathetic post. Page after page of unsubstantiated crap.

Show some effort... and not what you've currently been showing.

Look in the mirror, genius.

 

[Dapper]

^ Makes no sense. The state can use a deadly weapon to prove something in court?

Yes, it makes sense. It is the law. Read it. If one uses a deadly weapon in a manner which one should know will cause harm or death, such as shooting someone, then that proves they knew their action could result in death. Keep rereading that. The deadly weapon proves intent. It is right there in the text.

That is what it says. It is the law. You aren't arguing me, you are arguing the legislation and the expectation assumed to every reasonable person.

Look in the mirror, genius.

Where is your source?


You guys are on the internet. Look something up already. Quit being lazy and oppositional and actually do something to help your stance. If you can't, you are wrong. (And that is the case)

 

[McLaren]

Where is your source?

The source is this thread.

It's amazing how out of everyone posting, only 1 person seems to agree with you to a certain point, but as long as you keep pulling "sources" to fit your argument, we're the ones not thinking logically. You said yourself you asked your own mother. What qualifications does your mother have to give any sort of credible input on this discussion?

I bet none, yet you reply as if we're the ones talking out of our asses.

You guys are on the internet. Look something up already. Quit being lazy and oppositional and actually do something to help your stance. If you can't, you are wrong. (And that is the case)

The old, "I'm right, you're wrong" stance. Usually resulted to when the person taking it is mis-informed themselves.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, it makes sense. It is the law. Read it. If one uses a deadly weapon in a manner which one should know will cause harm or death, such as shooting someone, then that proves they knew their action could result in death. Keep rereading that. The deadly weapon proves intent. It is right there in the text.

That is what it says. It is the law. You aren't arguing me, you are arguing the legislation and the expectation assumed to every reasonable person.

Dapper, don't deflect, don't skim, don't rush, don't just go with what you want to be true. Just take your time, and read my previous post. If you want your arguments to get some respect on this forum, you need to start reading, and thinking, before you hit the reply button.

 

[Dapper]

The source is this thread.

It's amazing how out of everyone posting, only 1 person seems to agree with you to a certain point, but as long as you keep pulling "sources" to fit your argument, we're the ones not thinking logically. You said yourself you asked your own mother. What qualifications does your mother have to give any sort of credible input on this discussion?

I bet none, yet you reply as if we're the ones talking out of our asses.

She is a reasonable person and while she is not an expert in law, she is an expert in social work and has over 30 years of experience in humanities.

Not to mention her initial remark mirrors both what the law is and what Wiki and all it's attributable sources say.

 

[Tornado]

Don't you get tired of posting in such an overtly worthless manner?

Considering you just made a post implying that you expect anyone should give a damn what your mother has to say on the topic, do you?




And I see once again satire completely goes over your head.

Where is your source?

I'm more liable to believe something Famine, Foolkiller and several other people sit down and attempt to explain to you in detail than you saying you asked your mommy what she thought and presenting that as a "source."

 

[Dapper]

I'm more liable to believe something Famine, Foolkiller and several other people sit down and attempt to explain to you in detail than you saying you asked your mommy what she thought and presenting it as a source.

Again, post with nothing in them. Why?
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.

Guns are deadly weapons. Deadly weapons are used to infer intent.

Dapper, don't deflect, don't skim, don't rush, don't just go with what you want to be true. Just take your time, and read my previous post. If you want your arguments to get some respect on this forum, you need to start reading, and thinking, before you hit the reply button.

You think I long for respect from people who can't read clear text?

 

[Azuremen]

Guns are deadly weapons. Deadly weapons are used to infer intent.

It has been explained to you many, many, many times that sticks and stones can be used as deadly weapons, yet you seem to be obsessed with this line you've drawn in the sand on guns.

Again, what first hand experience do you have with firearms? And again, what education do you have?

 

[Tornado]

She is a reasonable person and while she is not an expert in law, she is an expert in social work and has over 30 years of experience in humanities.

Not to mention her initial remark mirrors both what the law is and what Wiki and all it's attributable sources say.

So, none. So, irrelevant.



And no, "She agrees with me" does not make her reputable as a "source" anymore than all the other times you've attempted to cite crap that agrees with you simply because it agrees with you rather than having any merit.

 

[McLaren]

She is a reasonable person and while she is not an expert in law, she is an expert in social work and has over 30 years of experience in humanities.

Not to mention her initial remark mirrors both what the law is and what Wiki and all it's attributable sources say.

So that's a no, then.

 

[Dapper]

Not that I expect anyone to understand the words within this link

 

[Danoff]

You think I long for respect from people who can read clear text?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I just asked you not to do.

 

[Dapper]

Just look at the number of post from 8:40 to 8:50.
Then look at the number of post in the 10 20 minutes after I post a link.

 

[Terronium-12]

That's enough.

Dapper, the thinly-veiled insults end here and now. It's not a suggestion, nor is it open to debate.

 

[Dapper]

That's enough.

Dapper, the thinly-veiled insults end here and now. It's not a suggestion, nor is it open to debate.

OK. But you gotta admit the opposers' poor production of evidence combined with continually questioning me despite my production of irrefutable evidence is way more absurd, right?

 

[Tornado]

I see what you mean.

Well, I have always been told that you don't shoot unless you expect the other person to die.

How can we argue with that?

 

[Dapper]

Not that I expect anyone to read the words within this link

I see what you mean.

How can we argue with that?

Feel free to read the link (edited to appease).

 

[Danoff]

Not that I expect anyone to understand the words within this link

A) This doesn't help you.
B) This isn't law.

 

[Zenith]

Why didn't I reply immediately? Because I was looking up Walter E. Oberer, instead of selecting emoticons and ignoring arguments that disprove my point completely.

Walter E. Oberer is an expert on labor laws. It is a long stretch to call him an authority on this subject.

I count the validity of sources, not the amount I have (Florida law, a wiki, my mother) and then follow by pronouncing them all "Irrefutable Evidence" because they agree with me.

 

[Danoff]

I count the validity of sources, not the amount I have (Florida law, a wiki, my mother) and then follow by pronouncing them all "Irrefutable Evidence" because they agree with me.

I wouldn't be so hasty to list florida law in agreement with his off-the-wall notion that any use of a weapon that could be construed as deadly is intent to kill. Famine's point that being a beekeeper constitutes use of thousands of deadly weapons and would mean the beekeper was automatically guilty of intent to commit murder is totally accurate.

 

[Terronium-12]

OK. But you gotta admit the opposers' poor production of evidence combined with continually questioning me despite my production of irrefutable evidence is way more absurd, right?

One, I don't have to admit anything.

Two, the only poor production of anything is on your end. I'll say it once again: the thinly veiled insults stop now.

 

[Zenith]

Snip

True. Let me rephrase. I count the validity of my sources, not the number I think I have.

 

[Dapper]

OK. GTplanet wins. 2 mods and 4 others run the opinions forum (all of whom have not a shred of evidence to solidify any opinion they have espoused).

I'll check back later just in case anyone digs up anything.

 

[Zenith]

Another big issue with this "use of deadly weapon=intent to kill" is that it ignores the reality of a situation.

If I'm in a defensive situation, I'm not choosing a gun over dozens of non-lethal options. I'm acting in a moment's notice with what tools I have made available to myself. Often, this is a gun or nothing.

Tasers and mace spray are very limited in effectiveness for defensive use. It's better to be prepared to either incapacitate or kill somebody (possibly without meaning to) than just be prepared to hopefully incapacitate an assailant.